@GreenTaurosGuy sorry i got confused on my historical dates but the day governments do anything rational would be the same day hell freezes over, another thing about the AAA is that they were tempteing to regulate how much farming can be done to avoid something like the dust bowl either but it still wouldnt have been needed because farmers everywhere wouldve learned that over production would have adversely caused damage to their farmers making them more caustious as to how much they should farm
@GreenTaurosGuy as for the AAA it came more than a decade after the time i was talking about my opinon i would let the markets fluctuate as they should if farmers produce too much prices go down on the healthier foods and america as a whole would be literally and figuratively healtier for it
@GreenTaurosGuy as for the AAA it came more than a decade after the time i was talking about my opinon i would let the markets fluctuate as they should if farmers produce too much prices go down on the healthier foods and america as a whole would be literally and figuratively healtier for it
I guess, uhh, Venezuela, Bolovia, Nicuragua, all of fucking Europe, and China should just revert to agrarian societies huh? And Somalia is our primary goal for government. Yep, let's just let companies and corporations run rampantly out of control without any government control.
Watch any of MaoistRebelNews2 and you'll see that the majority of world problems are the alienation of people from government. At least North Koreans get healthcare. I can't even get an inhaler here in USA.
Yeah, if Libertarians are so concerned about freedom then how come they don't vigorously oppose big brother, or genetic engineering, or nuclear weapons or ANY other manner in which human beings are in danger of being annihilated/dominated by governments or large organization? How come the only time they care about government is when it comes to taxes? Are your taxes going to matter when human beings are genetically engineered products? Will it matter when the earth is 50,000 degrees?
Libertarians (on the left and right) are practically the only ones who have been consistently anti-war (remember code pink against the bush wars? now they're silent while obama starts shit with Libya, Yeme, and Syria.).
@duckdown1993 they do quite actively, the problem being there aren't enough of them in Congress and Senate to change anything. Ron Paul has voted against a lot of these things, but 1 vote isn't enough.
@duckdown1993 At least we'll be free of those goddamn government handouts and rules that keep society together. Everyone should be free to do whatever they fucking want, right? To enact the new libertarian code of conduct, I am going to piss on the next person I see, and they will have the right to defend themselves, and I will have the right to retaliate, right?
Fuck libertarianism. People need to drop these skewed ideologies and get real.
Libertarians don't feel "everyone should be free to do whatever they fucking want." We believe in limited government, and that people should be able to do whatever they want SO LONG AS THEY ARE NOT INFRINGING UPON ANYONE ELSE.
You people who bash Libertarians seem to always misdefine the term.
@MayGodsBeLess And most Christians are pretty peaceful. But radical libertarians are absurd.
My libertarian friend shoves his Glenn Beck propaganda down my throat every chance he gets. While he fails to realize that the biggest problems stem from rich people and tax-paid bailouts.**
Capital is a social phenomenon and the use of every dollar "INFRINGES UPON ANYBODY ELSE". Libertarians seldom mention that "freedom" is now a commodity that can be bought and sold on a whim.
@MayGodsBeLess Now here is a collectivist I can respect. He openly admits his hatred of personal freedom and desire to control the actions of others at the point of a gun. At least he's being honest.
@Huboons Life at the end of a barrel occurs more in Somalia than any socialist countries.
Daily life in America involves as many, if not more, "or-else" orders as China. just read Bob Black's abolition of work. Freedom comes in no form other than Capital, in capitalist countries.
@MayGodsBeLess "Life at the end of a barrel occurs more in Somalia than any socialist countries." This is demonstrably false. The only difference between a warlord taking your money and the IRS is that one form of theft is "legal." The US has the most well armed police state in the world.
@MayGodsBeLess Comparing a tribal state to a socialist one...interesting, as they are both often based on the same convoluted sense of altruism, they attempt to base their power in a local context, they are naturally entropic thus devolving into dictatorships, and they tend to be ultranationalistic.
Freedom has a cost everywhere. I would rather have the ability to earn my freedom from one location and invest elsewhere, then be bullied and restricted by the state. Can’t you assholes leave me be?
@SkinnedLynryd No kidding, I don't get it myself. What's even stranger is that in the philipines you can redeem your drink bottles (2litter glass bottle) for cash and they'll reuse them as is. Can you imagine that? WTF is wrong with our society if we cant to brake down plastic to make something else when we can just keep reusing the same container!
@SkinnedLynryd Yep, most foreign countries use good old cane sugar which tastes sweeter than corn syrup. Mexican cokes are the best. Indian cokes use equivalent of about 30 teaspoonsful of sugar, USA uses about 20 teaspoonsful. Human body does not distinguish between all the sugars: all eventually get recognized as dextro-glucose. (right hand rotation) and amino acids, only levo.
YOU moronic AMERICANS that step into voting booths,are the ONLY reason this country will never be equal.NOT one politician running for office gives a SHIT what you think.The only time you EVER hear their voice directly is when they're running for office.After they win you no longer even EXIST to them till the next election.I can't believe I have to live on the same planet with all you VERY NARROW-MINDED easily dupped assholes that have ruined the nation.I HATER ANYONE THAT VOTES,FUCK YOU!!
@MrAmericanzombie although a little harsh it is sad what has happened to my country now infested with corrupt politicians. The days of servant leadership in america are long gone. being in office use to be a burden for the person in office and a duty to the people first now its a privilege. However I wont give up the fight. Event though i am only 22I live as a 20th century gentleman, lead by example and refuse to fall in line and support what we have now.
@Dorkus89Malorkus is a fucking lunatic and a traitor who wants to destroy our country, a worthless piece of scum like you. now go back and masturbate to his photo some more you fucking retard moron
Yeah sure. Fuck the constitution. I wipe my ass with the constitution. Fuckers like Ron Paul and his ilk think the constitution actually means something. Fuck him.
Corporations,and their puppets(politicians),love the world EXACTLY as it is.That's why normal ppl only get to argue over gay marriage,women's rights,race rights,etc.Basically NOTHING meaningful.They love the two party system in America so both sides can have their cake,and eat it too.Americans have no say so on wars,who we trade/sell with,,and all other MAJOR decisions.Repub's,and Democrats have been playing the hate the other party game since it began.THEY DON'T HATE each other.THEY LAUGH AT US
P&T are very naive sometimes.Like the world peace show.The UN is the biggest "bullshit" show ever.Free trade is also BULLSHIT.Theirs no such thing.Wars are a profit,power,resources,and land controlling game. The top brass have NO intention of creating world peace EVER!! World peace can ONLY be solved by banning all currencies,and everyone living truly equal,and having the same of everything,and sharing equally.That means all Governments,would become useless,and they lose all power.GOOD LUCK!!
ron paul=libertarian=david koch=tea party=free markets (ie worship of the market, instead of seeing that it's people that provide for people, not the market [which exists so the rich can exist], and no one is independent)=the recent housing crisis=free reign for the rich=wage slavery or homelessness for everyone else
The real problem is not the government...rather it is those who control the government...the corporate and financial elites who pour billions into the lobbies in Washington and fund the campaigns of the politicians they want elected.
The problem in America is not too much government...it is too little real government. There is almost no real or constitutional government left in America.
Financial Capital has usurped the political and social order.
@david8157 Why would the corporate and financial elites feel the need to lobby congress if congress didn't have the authority to allot hundreds of billions of dollars a year to select industries?
@david8157 Money has no power in congress if congress has no power to steal from, and accumulate debt, in the name of the citizens, and redistribute that money elsewhere.
Both sides wants the gov to stay out of our bedrooms. I agree, I'll need a place drink soda, put salt on my food, eat potato chips, have sex with consenting adults, smoke a cigaret, or joint, enjoy the toy I got with my happy meal. Yep, we need the gov out of our bedrooms. It my be the last place we still have liberty.
wow I had no idea that Penn and Teller had a degree in philosophy, ethics, economics, politics and sociology, oh wait! They don't... sorry guys in this case you have no clue to what you're talking about and you're in way over your heads!!
A lot of their info comes from CATO, look them up and then you'll start to question a lot of what they say and do your own research, when ever CATO is involved in the Bullshit show, they have been so wrong.
@thebeany no but with the use of simple common knowledge (which sadly isnt so common anymore) to see amd explain how f**ked up it is and prove that it doesnt take someone like me who has a degree in economics and history and am getting a masters to understand amd explain this. what was your degree in again?
@USPSAman I'm an undergrad which means I knowing more about (than penn and teller it seems) if you want a references try reading the 'economics of public issues' (the lastest edition) by: Roger L Miller, Daniel K. Benjamin, Douglas C. North. Even though I haven't seen the whole episode they (penn and teller) simply dismiss socialism and ignore other viewpoints. The comment that I made, was that people shouldn't simply rush into 'pro-libertariansim' and pro-captitalism'.
@thebeany "Even though I haven't seen the whole episode" Stop right there, you should have listened to the full episode before you attacked their claim, if you don't then you are a hypocrite as you claimed they "ignore other viewpoints" when you haven't finished with theirs. Also, when did they mention socialism in the video? Let alone dismiss the theory.
@DMAN123223 Perhaps I should seen the the entire video clip, but I'm just commenting on this video. While they don't mention socialism its implied (isn't it?) And I didn't say that there viewpoint weren't invalid, although I did find it overtly expressive.
@thebeany Subsidies are protectionist not socialist. It's overtly expressive because it's not meant to be informative as much as it is supposed to be entertaining.
@DMAN123223 "Subsidies are protectionist not socialist" You are really picking nits with that one. Socialism is government control of major industry. You thing subsidized industries aren't controlled?
@Huboons Socialism acts more in "common good" (Although I doubt such a thing exists) than in special interest groups. A subsidy is direct support for the special interest (always a busyness) therefore it's protectionist or "crony capitalist", as opposed to socialist redistribution of wealth which applies to a more diverse range especially those "worse off" (not necessarily a busyness). This is at least how I think they differ. You don't see a socialist government giving to special interests.
@DMAN123223 as far as I can tell (as Socialism encompasses many political systems) Socialist gov'ts don't need to give to special interest, because the government controls the means of production on a national level. That depends on if we are talking about State Socialism or something else. I also doubt that a "common good" exists, as humans cannot even agree on how or why we disagree.
@Huboons socialism is no such thing. you are being oversimplistic , and stereotyping socialism. Socialism has been defined ( by a PhD type person ) as where the govt controls more than 50% of the GDP. Therefore : I live in a socialist country. And I am very happy with the facy that we owe little, produce a lot , have low unemployment, good schools , and a good health service. We simply take the best bits from what is out there .
@tasman763 oversimplistic is not a word. Accurate is the word you wanted there. And of course you like socialism. You can't compete so you use government as a weapon to steal from those who can. Whats not to like for a non-producer?
@Huboons I live in New Zealand. We own and operate the worlds biggest privately owned dairy company . We run a free market . We export or die.....simple as that. Person for person we out produce the USA and most other " so called " free market economies. We think your country is run by short sighted thieves and idiots.
And oversimplify is what you do best ....isnt it ?
@tasman763 "New Zealand's largest dairy company is provided special privileges by the government that enable it to maintain a roughly 90% market share of the milk produced in New Zealand. This advantageous position has given this single dairy company direct control of more than one third of world dairy trade, without even accounting for the additional sales controlled through its many production and distributor relationships around the world." - oops
@thebeany I have gone from conservative to centrist to libertarian to centrist leaning libertarian. It is bad to rush to any side however on this subject the corn subsidies and gov corruption are really bad.
.. no communication devices (all regulated shit with standards as well), no security (so they must move to countries that doesn't provide security for the population). See how long you and your children last. XD There is a reason why life expectancy was not that great back then.
The only way I will take a libertarian seriously is when he lives outside society as we know it, completely selfdepended, no healthcare, no education (well, only education those provide who did not learn their stuff in schools and universities with regulated standards. See how that goes when you want to become something other than a farmer or the like), no publich transport, no techology (provided by regulated systems with regulated quality and safety standards)..
Anarchist and libertarians seem to be the same kind of naive morons. XD Those people don't want to be real anarchists or libertarians i.e. living outside the safety, health care, infrastructure and regulrations the state provides. Those people want some kind of anachism/libertarianism "ligh" where they can do whatevery they want without the duties (paying taxes, abiding to the law) while still profiting from everything a regulated state provides.
@sigatus No. They predicted it once the bailout was proposed; ooo, how hard. They didn't predict decades ago that banks would purposefully implode knowing they'd be bailed out. Saying that they did is hindsight bias, and mildly conspiracy-nutty.
Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act
Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
Just a couple. Research is hard, I know, but I trust you can find more on your own.
And bankers were FORCED to give those loans, then bet against their own client's failure?
Can I just say, that the Libertarian approach to solving the current economic crisis is absolutely folly.
Yes it works in theory but a true Libertarian supports a politicians right to take corporate money in order to finance their campaign. The problem is that money has infiltrated politics and Libertarianism doesn't even offer a solution.
@convictPKlol The Fed printing money is theft. It reduces the buying power of the dollars IN YOUR POCKET while you are completely oblivious. The national debt is a compilation of the money that washington has stolen from the taxpayers without their consent. Washington likes the Fed because it allows them to spend more than the people will allow. Libertarian ideals would do away with all this nonsense and remove the ability of politicians to steal from you and I (thus reducing corruption).
The reason why Libertarianism doesn't work is because the more money a person has then the more money they want and therefore the more immoral and fucking selfish that person is going to become making the poor even poorer and the rich even richer. Simple as.
@xXsecretxXBW Yeah because having morals is a bad thing. You've just demonstrated how fucking retarded you are by telling me to shut the fuck up. Learn how to argue.
@xXsecretxXBW Actually no, my first statement actually had some credibility in it concerning politics and how Libertarianism works. All you've done is insult me and claim how I'm wrong yet you've not explained or proven anything. That's why you're a fucking retard.
All this "FDA is evil" is funny. Corporations? Saints! Nevermind the countless abuses that private companies STILL get through, but who's the last person you know that died from food poisoning? Ever wonder why it's so rare? But nope! We don't need anything more than vigilant individual citizens to keep watch! You'd all doom us to repeat history, because apparently you have no knowledge whatsoever of the incredible abuses that caused the FDA to be formed.
Corporations cannot force you to do anything against your will. Sure it'll try to convince you through advertisements, etc, but no one is ever forced to buy anything from any corporation.
And that's a horrible fallacy. Just because not many have died from food poisoning hardly justifies the existence of the FDA. Corporations are only profitable if they serve the consumer. Killing your consumer significantly impacts your ability of making any sort of profit.
@mashed107 What rubbish. Who's talking about forcing anyone to do anything? Corporations don't have to "force" anyone to do anything: they just need to lie. The government regulatory organizations (when not corrupted) work on behalf of the people to ensure an honest market. If you really think corporations will act in their customer's best interest without regulation, again, you're dooming us to repeat history.
When people talk about a free economy, they're talking about eliminating laws that are a prior restraint on a corporation's ability to function. Of course, if a corporation lies, that constitutes fraud, and we have courts to deal with it.
Government regulations, in its applications, just assumes everyone is guilty, and everyone must comply prior to committing any supposed crime. Sarbanes-oxley is one type. I'm affected by it at work, and no one I work with would ever commit fraud.
@mashed107 But those prior restraint laws exist FOR A REASON. Sarbanes-oxley came into effect after BILLIONS of investor dollars were lost in the scandals of Enron, Worldcom, etc. The idea that we don't need preventative laws, and that having our courts "deal with" criminal actions is enough, is ridiculous. If a food company cuts corners and kills a hundred people before a recall, there's no court in the world that will bring them back. We need regulation to prevent it altogether.
@DaystarEld I agree that the market needs regulation. We need more businesses like Underwriters Laboratories, ConsumerReports, and the BBB to keep consumers safe!
@sigatus Private companies that serve as watchdogs can be great, as long as they're not suspected of basically selling good reviews, or acting like the mob and asking for "dues" to protect against negative publicity or withholding of seal of approval, like the BBB (allegedly) has done.
Obviously public org. like the FDA can be corrupt, but most division on this issue is about trust: both government and corporations can be corrupt. imo, at least the FDA isn't driven by profits; BBB are.
@DaystarEld Ahh but deep down the BBB does care about their reputation because they do not have the power to use violence against their customers for revenue. The BBB can go out of business, but the government will not because their power comes out of the barrel of a gun.
@sigatus Hey, quick question: how much did caring about reputation stop a dozen big banks from playing hot potato with their customer's debt? Oh wait, it didn't... leading to the second greatest financial crisis the country's ever been in, thanks to.... *drumroll* DEregulation over the past few decades. Even Alan Greenspan admitted to this flaw.
Like mashed107, you seem to be living in a fantasy world where corporations surely will act honestly, when history does not support that.
@DaystarEld First, the big banks did risky things because they *knew* that the government would step in and bail them out. The government creates moral hazard. Second, what exactly about the financial world was deregulated? There are zillions of regulations. Also, why did these banks lend to people who couldn't afford it? Third, a corporation is a government-created entity that people use to shield themselves from liability. If it wasn't for government we wouldn't have corporations.
@sigatus First, that's a ridiculous hindsight-bias claim to make, not to mention a partial "No True Scotsman" fallacy (seeing that a lot around here). One track record, you lot. Second, your lack of research makes me weep. If you don't have the time to actually look into the issue in the age of the internet, you have no place in this discussion. Go educate yourself. Also, they lent to people who they knew would fail and then bet against those loans. Again, research. Third, *tinfoil hat*
@DaystarEld Alan Greenspan? The former head of the FED? The most powerful and influential government bureau in existence? Yeah, I bet he'd really be interested in demonizing the government and supporting corporations, so if he admitted it was the fault of big business, we should certainly trust him.
@HeyItzMeDawg Do your research; He's a staunch libertarian who spent his years in political office stripping the government of its powers and influences over the market and businesses.
Saying he's not a libertarian just because his laissez-faire capitalism policies FAILED and then the government bailed out the banks, is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It doesn't change that the banks were heavily deregulated, they started doing more and more risky, greedy moves, and we all suffered.
@DaystarEld Didn't I just finish talking about how his words mean nothing? He's quite like Ronald Reagan.
Like Reagan, he's supposed to be some kind of small-government aficionado. Like Reagan, who tripled the national debt in just 8 years, his words were merely that: words. The net effect of his policies were massive expansions in fed power; hardly libertarian.
After all: "Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." - Paul Krugman
@DaystarEld So long as the banks know the taxpayers will be there to save them when they screw up, they're not deregulated. They MAKE the regulations. See the website geke dot us (geke spelled just like that). The day they have to belly-up when they screw up, no matter how big they are, and have the threat of real hard jail time for their crimes, is the day when they will really be deregulated and the day they'll suddenly stop doing risky things.
@DaystarEld Real regulation is market-driven, not government-driven (which means lobbyist- and corporate-driven). Until we realize this, the big guys will still be calling the shots at the taxpayers' expense, and little guys will be priced out of competition by the cost of compliance with government regulations written by the big guys who lobbied FOR those regulations and laws in the first place. Most recently, see Amazon lobbying FOR an internet sales tax; they can cope, little guys can't.
I don't consider a tax to be regulation. I consider a law mandating that all toxic byproducts of manufacturing paint must be safely disposed of to be regulation. Or a law requiring food companies to list the ingredients of their products. Or medicine companies to prove effectiveness.
These things would never be market driven. Hence need for government.
So effectively, you're in favor of precrime laws? Why not arrest murderers before they strike? We can force all people to get evaluated by a psychiatrist, and that'll cut on the number of murders by locking up those that fail that subjective test. Replace psychiatrists with bureaucrats, and you wind up with the same scenario as it relates to business regulations.
Punishing innocent corporations or people before being charged with a crime is the antithesis to a free country.
@mashed107 That's a hilariously inept comparison. Are you against screening for weapons at airports? That would have been a better one, but you chose to go with the hyperbolic, insane-troll-logic.
Requiring a food company to list its ingredients on its products is not "punishing innocent corporations." Ensuring that banks are transparent in their trading practices is not the antithesis of a "free country." Again, research is your friend.
Also, the reality is that prior restraint regulations don't help consumers at all. They hurt consumers by making the operating cost of a business extraordinarily high, and that eliminates small-business competition. That's why almost all regulations are passed with big-business support.
And lastly, a corporation's existence solely depends on pleasing the customer. It is in the complete opposite interest of the profit-seeking, consumer-pleasing corporation to hurt it consumers.
@mashed107 Yeah, they really do. Enforcing standard regulations for safety in construction? Protects consumers. You imagine some fantasy world where without regulation, businesses would live and die by how happy their customers are. It didn't happen before regulatory bodies arose, it won't happen if they go away. Again: the tobacco company. It poisoned its customers, little by little, for decades. It actively covered up this deceit of its product's effects. And it made billions.
@mashed107 Horrible fallacy... you're one to talk. You know all those times when thousands of produce and products get recalled for bad effects? Guess who brings that about? Your naivety is astounding. Companies don't always harm their consumers directly, in an obvious manner: Guess how we know anything about the LONG TERM, STEALTHY effects of tobacco. Not like tobacco companies fought tooth and nail to conceal that info from the public, right? But we don't need the FDA? Really?
This is why people hate hardcore libertarians, no matter how much they might agree with some of their arguments: the rest are absolutely retarded. Someone actually said that people can research what companies put in their products, we don't need government to do it. Hilarious. Go ahead and try to find out anything a company doesn't put on their PR-friendly websites or products. Seriously, you think the average citizen has the resources to do this for everything?
For all you Ron Paul simpletons, let's get something straight:
a) Yes, it's great that he's the only republican candidate who is consistent in his positions, and has some great ideas regarding foreign policy and the Federal Reserve.
b) No, he's not the Messiah. Have you actually listened to some of his ideals and beliefs? He's a ridiculously naive ultra libertarian who thinks that we don't need an EPA or FDA, because corporations will "do the right thing." Just like they did before them, right?
You mean the FDA do the right thing like approve drugs that kill more people than the illegal ones and use the SWAT team to raid Amish people selling "illegal" milk....
Hate free enterprise as much as you want, I have yet to see a walmart greeter shoot a puppy or kick down a persons door trying to tell them how to live their lives.
I don't need the FDA to protect me from Organic groceries and make sure people have to buy Monsanto garbage.
@TheTruthBomb Wow, you really just linked the FDA to shooting puppies, and then implied that they're in league with the PRIVATE COMPANY Monsanto.
Sorry to shatter your delicate world of absolute dichotomies, but I don't "hate free enterprise." I would rather the government make sure that bread companies aren't making bread with 70% sawdust, and to have the power to ban products like "Hydroxycut."
Do some goddamn research instead of getting all your news from sensationalist media.
As far as shooting a Amish puppy during a milk raid the videos on youtube :)
And get back to me on the hydroxy cut ban when the federal government can figure out how to keep heroin out of prison until then stop pretending you can ban anything in a free society.
@DaystarEld With all the research you are doing, would you really not be able to tell if the bread you wanted to buy was made of 70% sawdust?
Why do you need the gov't to do that for you when you then are required to spend the same amount of time and energy researching what the gov't is doing?
@DaystarEld "because corporation" -Actually I think it's more along the lines of knowing you are not that stupid. You don't need a nanny to point guns at everyone just the make sure they are not putting sawdust in bread. You can simply not buy bread with sawdust in it.
With that comes the lack of gov't protection for private corporations. Remember that corporations are formed with gov't legal protection that allows the owners to make decisions with little consequence personally.
@DaystarEld Do you really think people would just trust that a pill contains what a company says it does without verifiable third party research?
Do you really think people would form companies based on selling bad products/using harmful business practices if they were personally liable for damages to others due to their decisions?
Do you think the situation would be better, worse, or the same for the consumers if this were the case?
not to mention when the government stops meddling we get the 'corn bubble bursting' and chuckleheads bemoaning capitalism's failure even as once again the rubes ignore government intervention that enslaves free market forces.
@matchbox555 Fair distribution of wealth? So lets say you worked your ass off today, earned $1. You want the government to take your $1 and fairly distribute to other people? So what do you get? 1 cent? Fuck that. I earned that shit, I'm keeping it. Regardless, the REAL issue is the monetary system we have today. Shit wouldn't cost so damn much if we had a gold based standard but hey, you can spread that hard earned money to people who actually are lazy and don't want to have jobs all you want.
@MrAgentGreeny Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
@danning1 Maybe you should read the constitution. Government does have a role in our lives. If you want to know the role of the federal government read article 1, section 8. If you want to know the role of state governments read the 10th amendment.
@99Steve I don't understand, I totally agree with you. Did you mean the response for someone else and clicked mine by mistake? What you say is true, while excessive and/or unchecked government is clearly a bad idea human beings will always need some form of it to preserve our freedom and general welfare and so on. That was my point, I'm against libertarianism and, as a country like Somalia proves, the consequences of a very weak or non-existent government can be disastrous.
You must understand that the corruption so often blamed on capitalism (the skeleton in the basement) is in fact a product of the mixed economy we have had for the past 100+ years. You hand to bureaucrats the power to choke and regulate business, then you blame the businessmen when they are forced to pay extortions to bureaucrats? Capitalism means separation of economics and state, and it is precisely in a capitalist system that there is ZERO incentive for corruption.
@Success0527 "You hand to bureaucrats the power to choke and regulate business, then you blame the businessmen when they are forced to pay extortions to bureaucrats?"
Lol. Gotta love how you just painted the most powerful, influential people in the world as the poor, victimized underdog who has no choice but to "pay extortions" (aka, bribes) to operate day to day.
Corruption isn't a one way street. You pure-capitalism fanatics are almost as bad as the pure-socialism ones.
I think it would be ok to say that both parties are stupid and us as the american people are stupid for letting this happen.If you want change go protest and vote Ron paul
Corn subsidies are indeed stupid, and THEY ARE ALL MADE POSSIBLE BY REPUBLICANS. Republicans are stupid. Republican politicians are stupid. Republican voters are stupid. No, come to think of it, Republican politicians are evil. But Republican voters are stupid -- for voting for such evil.
@MortimerTheClueless Corn subsidies are indeed stupid, and THEY ARE ALL MADE POSSIBLE BY DEMOCRATS. Democrats are stupid. Democrat politicians are stupid. Democrat voters are stupid. No, come to think of it, Democrat politicians are evil. But Democrat voters are stupid -- for voting for such evil.
@unregisteruser Yeah, I'm sure it's only the Democrats who subsidize farmers. It's not like the majority of major farmland in the US just happens to be in all the most Republican states or anything.
Go back to Fox News or do some real research and follow the money.
@DaystarEld Monsanto, ConAgra and Tyson who all own the farmland are not Republican. Political parties are for know-nothing zombies who watch MSNBC or FOX NEWS, not for people who are awake.
@unregisteruser Whether or not the people who own those companies are Republican, Republicans are the ones who have bent over backward at every turn to help them. It's not really up for debate; you can see it in legislature history. Whether it's for ideological reasons or simply because they get bribed/lobbied to do it doesn't change that.
Democrats have their own issues, but equating them as the same is idiotic. Both can be corrupt in their own ways: this is a Republican one.
@DaystarEld Oops, I'm sorry. I did not know which post you were replying to. I was totally being sarcastic with the democrat thing, if you look. It's word for word from the previous post. Anywho - party really doesn't matter. Neither one gives a f*&^ about people. George Washington warned us if we ever became a two-party political system, it would destroy the nation. He was right.
@DaystarEld I'm a libertarian. I could care less if it's the Democrats or Republicans subsidizing. All I care about is that it stops. Go fuck yourself. Have a nice day.
@DaystarEld if corn is being subsidized you'd do better to look at the purchasers than the corn farmer as at either demand point for corn you'd see a similar break even point / profit potential due to newly emergent entrepreneurs eyeing the illusory demand; let me tell you something you already know...you don't want to be a corn farmer....even for virgins in the afterlife...(who would expect those to be attractive I don't get it...they made it to heaven still a virgin?!).
@DaystarEld Ron Paul wants to cut out all corporate welfare. He is the only one not bought and paid for by the banks. Obama and Romney are the same guy!
@DaystarEld Democrats and Republicans are equally beholden to corporate interests. It's not that Republicans cause farm subsidies it's that in the red states there is more lobbying power from farmers and hence whichever party dominates in that area will tend to favour subsidies to farms. Nothing to do with R or D and just about money and influence. R and D are the same, fundamentally.
@davyjames R and D are fundamentally different in that one believes man is naturally evil and the other believes man is naturally good. It doesn't get much more fundamentally different than that, my friend.
@GreenTaurosGuy sorry i got confused on my historical dates but the day governments do anything rational would be the same day hell freezes over, another thing about the AAA is that they were tempteing to regulate how much farming can be done to avoid something like the dust bowl either but it still wouldnt have been needed because farmers everywhere wouldve learned that over production would have adversely caused damage to their farmers making them more caustious as to how much they should farm
TheLeperMessi4h 12 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GreenTaurosGuy as for the AAA it came more than a decade after the time i was talking about my opinon i would let the markets fluctuate as they should if farmers produce too much prices go down on the healthier foods and america as a whole would be literally and figuratively healtier for it
TheLeperMessi4h 12 hours ago
@GreenTaurosGuy as for the AAA it came more than a decade after the time i was talking about my opinon i would let the markets fluctuate as they should if farmers produce too much prices go down on the healthier foods and america as a whole would be literally and figuratively healtier for it
TheLeperMessi4h 12 hours ago
Comment removed
TheLeperMessi4h 12 hours ago
YEAH, FUCK YOU PEOPLE WHO THINK THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD INTERVINE MORE. FUCK YOU
Wallgrave45 13 hours ago
@MayGodsBeLess Do you really think people are going to go around pissing on each other? Has such a thing ever happened in human history?
duckdown1993 19 hours ago
I guess, uhh, Venezuela, Bolovia, Nicuragua, all of fucking Europe, and China should just revert to agrarian societies huh? And Somalia is our primary goal for government. Yep, let's just let companies and corporations run rampantly out of control without any government control.
Watch any of MaoistRebelNews2 and you'll see that the majority of world problems are the alienation of people from government. At least North Koreans get healthcare. I can't even get an inhaler here in USA.
MayGodsBeLess 1 day ago
The good old commerce clause strikes again!
danman1178 1 day ago
Penn,
Y U ALWAYS SO ANGRY?!?!
dtothelu 2 days ago
Yeah, if Libertarians are so concerned about freedom then how come they don't vigorously oppose big brother, or genetic engineering, or nuclear weapons or ANY other manner in which human beings are in danger of being annihilated/dominated by governments or large organization? How come the only time they care about government is when it comes to taxes? Are your taxes going to matter when human beings are genetically engineered products? Will it matter when the earth is 50,000 degrees?
duckdown1993 2 days ago
@duckdown1993
They do, you're retarded.
Libertarians (on the left and right) are practically the only ones who have been consistently anti-war (remember code pink against the bush wars? now they're silent while obama starts shit with Libya, Yeme, and Syria.).
fountainherz 2 days ago
@duckdown1993 they do quite actively, the problem being there aren't enough of them in Congress and Senate to change anything. Ron Paul has voted against a lot of these things, but 1 vote isn't enough.
ocanator 2 days ago
@duckdown1993 At least we'll be free of those goddamn government handouts and rules that keep society together. Everyone should be free to do whatever they fucking want, right? To enact the new libertarian code of conduct, I am going to piss on the next person I see, and they will have the right to defend themselves, and I will have the right to retaliate, right?
Fuck libertarianism. People need to drop these skewed ideologies and get real.
MayGodsBeLess 1 day ago
@MayGodsBeLess
Libertarians don't feel "everyone should be free to do whatever they fucking want." We believe in limited government, and that people should be able to do whatever they want SO LONG AS THEY ARE NOT INFRINGING UPON ANYONE ELSE.
You people who bash Libertarians seem to always misdefine the term.
DetCrockett7 22 hours ago
Comment removed
MayGodsBeLess 8 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MayGodsBeLess And most Christians are pretty peaceful. But radical libertarians are absurd.
My libertarian friend shoves his Glenn Beck propaganda down my throat every chance he gets. While he fails to realize that the biggest problems stem from rich people and tax-paid bailouts.**
Capital is a social phenomenon and the use of every dollar "INFRINGES UPON ANYBODY ELSE". Libertarians seldom mention that "freedom" is now a commodity that can be bought and sold on a whim.
MayGodsBeLess 8 hours ago
@MayGodsBeLess Now here is a collectivist I can respect. He openly admits his hatred of personal freedom and desire to control the actions of others at the point of a gun. At least he's being honest.
Huboons 9 hours ago
@Huboons Life at the end of a barrel occurs more in Somalia than any socialist countries.
Daily life in America involves as many, if not more, "or-else" orders as China. just read Bob Black's abolition of work. Freedom comes in no form other than Capital, in capitalist countries.
MayGodsBeLess 8 hours ago
@MayGodsBeLess "Life at the end of a barrel occurs more in Somalia than any socialist countries." This is demonstrably false. The only difference between a warlord taking your money and the IRS is that one form of theft is "legal." The US has the most well armed police state in the world.
Huboons 7 hours ago
@MayGodsBeLess Comparing a tribal state to a socialist one...interesting, as they are both often based on the same convoluted sense of altruism, they attempt to base their power in a local context, they are naturally entropic thus devolving into dictatorships, and they tend to be ultranationalistic.
Freedom has a cost everywhere. I would rather have the ability to earn my freedom from one location and invest elsewhere, then be bullied and restricted by the state. Can’t you assholes leave me be?
jonescomplete 3 hours ago
I'm a devout Christian and I'd vote for Penn as President.
Voting RP or Libertarian this year depending on whether RP gets the nomination.
IMABACHELORTILLIDIE 3 days ago 2
I like these guys a lot, but I was shocked by the amount of swearing.
aleidius192 4 days ago
Corn syrup sucks, soda in other countries tastes a hell of a lot better.
SkinnedLynryd 5 days ago
@SkinnedLynryd No kidding, I don't get it myself. What's even stranger is that in the philipines you can redeem your drink bottles (2litter glass bottle) for cash and they'll reuse them as is. Can you imagine that? WTF is wrong with our society if we cant to brake down plastic to make something else when we can just keep reusing the same container!
MavHunter20XX 4 days ago
@SkinnedLynryd Yep, most foreign countries use good old cane sugar which tastes sweeter than corn syrup. Mexican cokes are the best. Indian cokes use equivalent of about 30 teaspoonsful of sugar, USA uses about 20 teaspoonsful. Human body does not distinguish between all the sugars: all eventually get recognized as dextro-glucose. (right hand rotation) and amino acids, only levo.
bustacapinlutha 3 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
DEAR VIEWERS,
FOR ASTONISHING FACTS, JUST TYPE ON THE SEARCHING BOX:
Muslim Destroys Atheism
YOU MUST, MUST BE STONISHED! ENJOY!
gulfland 6 days ago
Yes, libertarians are awesome. Thank you for noticing.
evesdrop1982 1 week ago
this man is genius
Coldretter 1 week ago
Clueless idiot
dreda23 1 week ago
Preach on, brother!
mrjuanneg 1 week ago 13
government sucks. they don't even think about pussy. that is sad. Thanks Pen, Teller
khaoz209 1 week ago 10
@khaoz209 They don't even think about dick either. Well, that's what they claim anyway. How many republicans are in the closet I wonder....
luxord2654 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
FACTS only Ron Paul seems to understand:
300 million Americans.
138 million WORKING Americans.
21 million of those are GOVERNMENT employees.
60 million on Social Security.
48 million collecting some type of Welfare.
2 million in prison or jail...etc.
What percentage of a population can feed at the public trough before that society collapes?
sgapplebee 1 week ago
YOU moronic AMERICANS that step into voting booths,are the ONLY reason this country will never be equal.NOT one politician running for office gives a SHIT what you think.The only time you EVER hear their voice directly is when they're running for office.After they win you no longer even EXIST to them till the next election.I can't believe I have to live on the same planet with all you VERY NARROW-MINDED easily dupped assholes that have ruined the nation.I HATER ANYONE THAT VOTES,FUCK YOU!!
MrAmericanzombie 1 week ago
@MrAmericanzombie although a little harsh it is sad what has happened to my country now infested with corrupt politicians. The days of servant leadership in america are long gone. being in office use to be a burden for the person in office and a duty to the people first now its a privilege. However I wont give up the fight. Event though i am only 22I live as a 20th century gentleman, lead by example and refuse to fall in line and support what we have now.
USPSAman 1 week ago
@MrAmericanzombie Ron Paul!
Dorkus89Malorkus 1 week ago
@Dorkus89Malorkus is a fucking lunatic and a traitor who wants to destroy our country, a worthless piece of scum like you. now go back and masturbate to his photo some more you fucking retard moron
polabear001 1 week ago
@polabear001 Ops did I hit a nerve?
Yeah sure. Fuck the constitution. I wipe my ass with the constitution. Fuckers like Ron Paul and his ilk think the constitution actually means something. Fuck him.
Dorkus89Malorkus 1 week ago
Corporations,and their puppets(politicians),love the world EXACTLY as it is.That's why normal ppl only get to argue over gay marriage,women's rights,race rights,etc.Basically NOTHING meaningful.They love the two party system in America so both sides can have their cake,and eat it too.Americans have no say so on wars,who we trade/sell with,,and all other MAJOR decisions.Repub's,and Democrats have been playing the hate the other party game since it began.THEY DON'T HATE each other.THEY LAUGH AT US
MrAmericanzombie 1 week ago
P&T are very naive sometimes.Like the world peace show.The UN is the biggest "bullshit" show ever.Free trade is also BULLSHIT.Theirs no such thing.Wars are a profit,power,resources,and land controlling game. The top brass have NO intention of creating world peace EVER!! World peace can ONLY be solved by banning all currencies,and everyone living truly equal,and having the same of everything,and sharing equally.That means all Governments,would become useless,and they lose all power.GOOD LUCK!!
MrAmericanzombie 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ron paul=libertarian=david koch=tea party=free markets (ie worship of the market, instead of seeing that it's people that provide for people, not the market [which exists so the rich can exist], and no one is independent)=the recent housing crisis=free reign for the rich=wage slavery or homelessness for everyone else
ntycplyst 1 week ago
The real problem is not the government...rather it is those who control the government...the corporate and financial elites who pour billions into the lobbies in Washington and fund the campaigns of the politicians they want elected.
The problem in America is not too much government...it is too little real government. There is almost no real or constitutional government left in America.
Financial Capital has usurped the political and social order.
America needs a new revolution.
david8157 1 week ago
@david8157 Why would the corporate and financial elites feel the need to lobby congress if congress didn't have the authority to allot hundreds of billions of dollars a year to select industries?
trick29420 1 week ago
Congress represents the power of the people and must have power to act as it sees fit...in the interests of the people.
What exists in America today is government which serves the interests of the financial elites...the 1%.
America is no longer democratic or constitutional. In fact the USA constitution is being shredded by the elected agents of the elites.
The USA government is a subsidiary of corporate America and the Anglo-American financial oligarchs.
david8157 1 week ago
@david8157 You didn't answer my question.
trick29420 1 week ago
Yes I did. To say it more clearly...your Q is the wrong Q...in my opinion.
Follow the money and you will find the source of the real power...the real rulers of the USA.
Today the wealth of the American people is being transferred to the financial oligarchs by their agents in government.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
david8157 1 week ago
@david8157 Money has no power in congress if congress has no power to steal from, and accumulate debt, in the name of the citizens, and redistribute that money elsewhere.
trick29420 1 week ago
Both sides wants the gov to stay out of our bedrooms. I agree, I'll need a place drink soda, put salt on my food, eat potato chips, have sex with consenting adults, smoke a cigaret, or joint, enjoy the toy I got with my happy meal. Yep, we need the gov out of our bedrooms. It my be the last place we still have liberty.
mydarkside13 1 week ago
wow I had no idea that Penn and Teller had a degree in philosophy, ethics, economics, politics and sociology, oh wait! They don't... sorry guys in this case you have no clue to what you're talking about and you're in way over your heads!!
thebeany 1 week ago
@thebeany
A lot of their info comes from CATO, look them up and then you'll start to question a lot of what they say and do your own research, when ever CATO is involved in the Bullshit show, they have been so wrong.
mecher3k 1 week ago
@thebeany no but with the use of simple common knowledge (which sadly isnt so common anymore) to see amd explain how f**ked up it is and prove that it doesnt take someone like me who has a degree in economics and history and am getting a masters to understand amd explain this. what was your degree in again?
USPSAman 1 week ago
@USPSAman I'm an undergrad which means I knowing more about (than penn and teller it seems) if you want a references try reading the 'economics of public issues' (the lastest edition) by: Roger L Miller, Daniel K. Benjamin, Douglas C. North. Even though I haven't seen the whole episode they (penn and teller) simply dismiss socialism and ignore other viewpoints. The comment that I made, was that people shouldn't simply rush into 'pro-libertariansim' and pro-captitalism'.
thebeany 1 week ago
@thebeany "Even though I haven't seen the whole episode" Stop right there, you should have listened to the full episode before you attacked their claim, if you don't then you are a hypocrite as you claimed they "ignore other viewpoints" when you haven't finished with theirs. Also, when did they mention socialism in the video? Let alone dismiss the theory.
DMAN123223 1 week ago
@DMAN123223 Perhaps I should seen the the entire video clip, but I'm just commenting on this video. While they don't mention socialism its implied (isn't it?) And I didn't say that there viewpoint weren't invalid, although I did find it overtly expressive.
thebeany 1 week ago
@thebeany Subsidies are protectionist not socialist. It's overtly expressive because it's not meant to be informative as much as it is supposed to be entertaining.
DMAN123223 1 week ago
@DMAN123223 great comment!
thebeany 6 days ago
@DMAN123223 "Subsidies are protectionist not socialist" You are really picking nits with that one. Socialism is government control of major industry. You thing subsidized industries aren't controlled?
Huboons 2 days ago
@Huboons Socialism acts more in "common good" (Although I doubt such a thing exists) than in special interest groups. A subsidy is direct support for the special interest (always a busyness) therefore it's protectionist or "crony capitalist", as opposed to socialist redistribution of wealth which applies to a more diverse range especially those "worse off" (not necessarily a busyness). This is at least how I think they differ. You don't see a socialist government giving to special interests.
DMAN123223 2 days ago
@DMAN123223 as far as I can tell (as Socialism encompasses many political systems) Socialist gov'ts don't need to give to special interest, because the government controls the means of production on a national level. That depends on if we are talking about State Socialism or something else. I also doubt that a "common good" exists, as humans cannot even agree on how or why we disagree.
daingore 1 day ago
@Huboons socialism is no such thing. you are being oversimplistic , and stereotyping socialism. Socialism has been defined ( by a PhD type person ) as where the govt controls more than 50% of the GDP. Therefore : I live in a socialist country. And I am very happy with the facy that we owe little, produce a lot , have low unemployment, good schools , and a good health service. We simply take the best bits from what is out there .
tasman763 1 day ago
@tasman763 oversimplistic is not a word. Accurate is the word you wanted there. And of course you like socialism. You can't compete so you use government as a weapon to steal from those who can. Whats not to like for a non-producer?
Huboons 18 hours ago
@Huboons I live in New Zealand. We own and operate the worlds biggest privately owned dairy company . We run a free market . We export or die.....simple as that. Person for person we out produce the USA and most other " so called " free market economies. We think your country is run by short sighted thieves and idiots.
And oversimplify is what you do best ....isnt it ?
tasman763 11 hours ago
@tasman763 "New Zealand's largest dairy company is provided special privileges by the government that enable it to maintain a roughly 90% market share of the milk produced in New Zealand. This advantageous position has given this single dairy company direct control of more than one third of world dairy trade, without even accounting for the additional sales controlled through its many production and distributor relationships around the world." - oops
Huboons 9 hours ago
@thebeany I have gone from conservative to centrist to libertarian to centrist leaning libertarian. It is bad to rush to any side however on this subject the corn subsidies and gov corruption are really bad.
USPSAman 1 week ago
@USPSAman I just realized my last post was grammatically incorrect, anyway great comment!
thebeany 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
.. no communication devices (all regulated shit with standards as well), no security (so they must move to countries that doesn't provide security for the population). See how long you and your children last. XD There is a reason why life expectancy was not that great back then.
MsHyde1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The only way I will take a libertarian seriously is when he lives outside society as we know it, completely selfdepended, no healthcare, no education (well, only education those provide who did not learn their stuff in schools and universities with regulated standards. See how that goes when you want to become something other than a farmer or the like), no publich transport, no techology (provided by regulated systems with regulated quality and safety standards)..
MsHyde1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anarchist and libertarians seem to be the same kind of naive morons. XD Those people don't want to be real anarchists or libertarians i.e. living outside the safety, health care, infrastructure and regulrations the state provides. Those people want some kind of anachism/libertarianism "ligh" where they can do whatevery they want without the duties (paying taxes, abiding to the law) while still profiting from everything a regulated state provides.
MsHyde1 1 week ago
" we fucking subsidise fucking corn farmers ".. lmao... and it was such an academic conversation
string22 1 week ago
If Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum win the GOP nomination, I'm voting for Gary Johnson!
JoshBoschke 1 week ago
lol @ this
MrDarcyIsHere 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sigatus No. They predicted it once the bailout was proposed; ooo, how hard. They didn't predict decades ago that banks would purposefully implode knowing they'd be bailed out. Saying that they did is hindsight bias, and mildly conspiracy-nutty.
Garn–St. Germain Depository Institutions Act
Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act
Just a couple. Research is hard, I know, but I trust you can find more on your own.
And bankers were FORCED to give those loans, then bet against their own client's failure?
DaystarEld 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
DaystarEld 2 weeks ago
Government doesn't do anything well.
DaveTheTuberx 2 weeks ago
Can I just say, that the Libertarian approach to solving the current economic crisis is absolutely folly.
Yes it works in theory but a true Libertarian supports a politicians right to take corporate money in order to finance their campaign. The problem is that money has infiltrated politics and Libertarianism doesn't even offer a solution.
convictPKlol 2 weeks ago
@convictPKlol The Fed printing money is theft. It reduces the buying power of the dollars IN YOUR POCKET while you are completely oblivious. The national debt is a compilation of the money that washington has stolen from the taxpayers without their consent. Washington likes the Fed because it allows them to spend more than the people will allow. Libertarian ideals would do away with all this nonsense and remove the ability of politicians to steal from you and I (thus reducing corruption).
DaveTheTuberx 2 weeks ago
>Implying libertarians are the only people who protest unreasonable taxes. Retards.
Herrkake 2 weeks ago
The reason why Libertarianism doesn't work is because the more money a person has then the more money they want and therefore the more immoral and fucking selfish that person is going to become making the poor even poorer and the rich even richer. Simple as.
TheLeardMan 2 weeks ago
@TheLeardMan Shut the fuck up your moral fag.
xXsecretxXBW 2 weeks ago
@xXsecretxXBW Yeah because having morals is a bad thing. You've just demonstrated how fucking retarded you are by telling me to shut the fuck up. Learn how to argue.
TheLeardMan 2 weeks ago
@TheLeardMan The reason why i only said "shut the fuck up", is because your statement was the most IDIOTIC thing i have ever read in my entire life.
xXsecretxXBW 2 weeks ago
@xXsecretxXBW Yet you have no way of arguing why it is. Well done retard.
TheLeardMan 2 weeks ago
@TheLeardMan Your statement is fucking "retarded". Stupid replyments should be used for stupid statements, no?
xXsecretxXBW 2 weeks ago
@xXsecretxXBW Actually no, my first statement actually had some credibility in it concerning politics and how Libertarianism works. All you've done is insult me and claim how I'm wrong yet you've not explained or proven anything. That's why you're a fucking retard.
TheLeardMan 1 week ago
All this "FDA is evil" is funny. Corporations? Saints! Nevermind the countless abuses that private companies STILL get through, but who's the last person you know that died from food poisoning? Ever wonder why it's so rare? But nope! We don't need anything more than vigilant individual citizens to keep watch! You'd all doom us to repeat history, because apparently you have no knowledge whatsoever of the incredible abuses that caused the FDA to be formed.
Never seen cynicism look so naive.
DaystarEld 2 weeks ago
@DaystarEld
Corporations cannot force you to do anything against your will. Sure it'll try to convince you through advertisements, etc, but no one is ever forced to buy anything from any corporation.
And that's a horrible fallacy. Just because not many have died from food poisoning hardly justifies the existence of the FDA. Corporations are only profitable if they serve the consumer. Killing your consumer significantly impacts your ability of making any sort of profit.
mashed107 2 weeks ago
@mashed107 What rubbish. Who's talking about forcing anyone to do anything? Corporations don't have to "force" anyone to do anything: they just need to lie. The government regulatory organizations (when not corrupted) work on behalf of the people to ensure an honest market. If you really think corporations will act in their customer's best interest without regulation, again, you're dooming us to repeat history.
DaystarEld 2 weeks ago
@DaystarEld
When people talk about a free economy, they're talking about eliminating laws that are a prior restraint on a corporation's ability to function. Of course, if a corporation lies, that constitutes fraud, and we have courts to deal with it.
Government regulations, in its applications, just assumes everyone is guilty, and everyone must comply prior to committing any supposed crime. Sarbanes-oxley is one type. I'm affected by it at work, and no one I work with would ever commit fraud.
mashed107 2 weeks ago
@mashed107 But those prior restraint laws exist FOR A REASON. Sarbanes-oxley came into effect after BILLIONS of investor dollars were lost in the scandals of Enron, Worldcom, etc. The idea that we don't need preventative laws, and that having our courts "deal with" criminal actions is enough, is ridiculous. If a food company cuts corners and kills a hundred people before a recall, there's no court in the world that will bring them back. We need regulation to prevent it altogether.
DaystarEld 2 weeks ago
@DaystarEld I agree that the market needs regulation. We need more businesses like Underwriters Laboratories, ConsumerReports, and the BBB to keep consumers safe!
sigatus 2 weeks ago
@sigatus Private companies that serve as watchdogs can be great, as long as they're not suspected of basically selling good reviews, or acting like the mob and asking for "dues" to protect against negative publicity or withholding of seal of approval, like the BBB (allegedly) has done.
Obviously public org. like the FDA can be corrupt, but most division on this issue is about trust: both government and corporations can be corrupt. imo, at least the FDA isn't driven by profits; BBB are.
DaystarEld 2 weeks ago
@DaystarEld Ahh but deep down the BBB does care about their reputation because they do not have the power to use violence against their customers for revenue. The BBB can go out of business, but the government will not because their power comes out of the barrel of a gun.
sigatus 2 weeks ago
@sigatus Hey, quick question: how much did caring about reputation stop a dozen big banks from playing hot potato with their customer's debt? Oh wait, it didn't... leading to the second greatest financial crisis the country's ever been in, thanks to.... *drumroll* DEregulation over the past few decades. Even Alan Greenspan admitted to this flaw.
Like mashed107, you seem to be living in a fantasy world where corporations surely will act honestly, when history does not support that.
DaystarEld 2 weeks ago
@DaystarEld First, the big banks did risky things because they *knew* that the government would step in and bail them out. The government creates moral hazard. Second, what exactly about the financial world was deregulated? There are zillions of regulations. Also, why did these banks lend to people who couldn't afford it? Third, a corporation is a government-created entity that people use to shield themselves from liability. If it wasn't for government we wouldn't have corporations.
sigatus 2 weeks ago
@sigatus First, that's a ridiculous hindsight-bias claim to make, not to mention a partial "No True Scotsman" fallacy (seeing that a lot around here). One track record, you lot. Second, your lack of research makes me weep. If you don't have the time to actually look into the issue in the age of the internet, you have no place in this discussion. Go educate yourself. Also, they lent to people who they knew would fail and then bet against those loans. Again, research. Third, *tinfoil hat*
DaystarEld 2 weeks ago
@DaystarEld Alan Greenspan? The former head of the FED? The most powerful and influential government bureau in existence? Yeah, I bet he'd really be interested in demonizing the government and supporting corporations, so if he admitted it was the fault of big business, we should certainly trust him.
Not.
HeyItzMeDawg 2 weeks ago
@HeyItzMeDawg Do your research; He's a staunch libertarian who spent his years in political office stripping the government of its powers and influences over the market and businesses.
Saying he's not a libertarian just because his laissez-faire capitalism policies FAILED and then the government bailed out the banks, is a "No True Scotsman" fallacy. It doesn't change that the banks were heavily deregulated, they started doing more and more risky, greedy moves, and we all suffered.
DaystarEld 2 weeks ago
@DaystarEld Didn't I just finish talking about how his words mean nothing? He's quite like Ronald Reagan.
Like Reagan, he's supposed to be some kind of small-government aficionado. Like Reagan, who tripled the national debt in just 8 years, his words were merely that: words. The net effect of his policies were massive expansions in fed power; hardly libertarian.
After all: "Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." - Paul Krugman
HeyItzMeDawg 2 weeks ago
@DaystarEld So long as the banks know the taxpayers will be there to save them when they screw up, they're not deregulated. They MAKE the regulations. See the website geke dot us (geke spelled just like that). The day they have to belly-up when they screw up, no matter how big they are, and have the threat of real hard jail time for their crimes, is the day when they will really be deregulated and the day they'll suddenly stop doing risky things.
MyKidsAreTheBestEver 1 week ago
@MyKidsAreTheBestEver You keep using those words, "deregulated" and "regulated." I don't think it means what you think it means.
DaystarEld 1 week ago
@DaystarEld Real regulation is market-driven, not government-driven (which means lobbyist- and corporate-driven). Until we realize this, the big guys will still be calling the shots at the taxpayers' expense, and little guys will be priced out of competition by the cost of compliance with government regulations written by the big guys who lobbied FOR those regulations and laws in the first place. Most recently, see Amazon lobbying FOR an internet sales tax; they can cope, little guys can't.
MyKidsAreTheBestEver 1 week ago
@MyKidsAreTheBestEver Yeah, see, we're talking about different types of regulation.
I don't consider a tax to be regulation. I consider a law mandating that all toxic byproducts of manufacturing paint must be safely disposed of to be regulation. Or a law requiring food companies to list the ingredients of their products. Or medicine companies to prove effectiveness.
These things would never be market driven. Hence need for government.
DaystarEld 1 week ago
@DaystarEld
So effectively, you're in favor of precrime laws? Why not arrest murderers before they strike? We can force all people to get evaluated by a psychiatrist, and that'll cut on the number of murders by locking up those that fail that subjective test. Replace psychiatrists with bureaucrats, and you wind up with the same scenario as it relates to business regulations.
Punishing innocent corporations or people before being charged with a crime is the antithesis to a free country.
mashed107 2 weeks ago
@mashed107 That's a hilariously inept comparison. Are you against screening for weapons at airports? That would have been a better one, but you chose to go with the hyperbolic, insane-troll-logic.
Requiring a food company to list its ingredients on its products is not "punishing innocent corporations." Ensuring that banks are transparent in their trading practices is not the antithesis of a "free country." Again, research is your friend.
Or you can keep throwing out strawmen.
DaystarEld 2 weeks ago
@DaystarEld
Also, the reality is that prior restraint regulations don't help consumers at all. They hurt consumers by making the operating cost of a business extraordinarily high, and that eliminates small-business competition. That's why almost all regulations are passed with big-business support.
And lastly, a corporation's existence solely depends on pleasing the customer. It is in the complete opposite interest of the profit-seeking, consumer-pleasing corporation to hurt it consumers.
mashed107 2 weeks ago
@mashed107 Yeah, they really do. Enforcing standard regulations for safety in construction? Protects consumers. You imagine some fantasy world where without regulation, businesses would live and die by how happy their customers are. It didn't happen before regulatory bodies arose, it won't happen if they go away. Again: the tobacco company. It poisoned its customers, little by little, for decades. It actively covered up this deceit of its product's effects. And it made billions.
DaystarEld 2 weeks ago
@mashed107 Horrible fallacy... you're one to talk. You know all those times when thousands of produce and products get recalled for bad effects? Guess who brings that about? Your naivety is astounding. Companies don't always harm their consumers directly, in an obvious manner: Guess how we know anything about the LONG TERM, STEALTHY effects of tobacco. Not like tobacco companies fought tooth and nail to conceal that info from the public, right? But we don't need the FDA? Really?
DaystarEld 2 weeks ago
This is why people hate hardcore libertarians, no matter how much they might agree with some of their arguments: the rest are absolutely retarded. Someone actually said that people can research what companies put in their products, we don't need government to do it. Hilarious. Go ahead and try to find out anything a company doesn't put on their PR-friendly websites or products. Seriously, you think the average citizen has the resources to do this for everything?
DaystarEld 2 weeks ago
For all you Ron Paul simpletons, let's get something straight:
a) Yes, it's great that he's the only republican candidate who is consistent in his positions, and has some great ideas regarding foreign policy and the Federal Reserve.
b) No, he's not the Messiah. Have you actually listened to some of his ideals and beliefs? He's a ridiculously naive ultra libertarian who thinks that we don't need an EPA or FDA, because corporations will "do the right thing." Just like they did before them, right?
DaystarEld 2 weeks ago
@DaystarEld
You mean the FDA do the right thing like approve drugs that kill more people than the illegal ones and use the SWAT team to raid Amish people selling "illegal" milk....
Hate free enterprise as much as you want, I have yet to see a walmart greeter shoot a puppy or kick down a persons door trying to tell them how to live their lives.
I don't need the FDA to protect me from Organic groceries and make sure people have to buy Monsanto garbage.
TheTruthBomb 2 weeks ago
@TheTruthBomb Wow, you really just linked the FDA to shooting puppies, and then implied that they're in league with the PRIVATE COMPANY Monsanto.
Sorry to shatter your delicate world of absolute dichotomies, but I don't "hate free enterprise." I would rather the government make sure that bread companies aren't making bread with 70% sawdust, and to have the power to ban products like "Hydroxycut."
Do some goddamn research instead of getting all your news from sensationalist media.
DaystarEld 2 weeks ago
@DaystarEld
As far as shooting a Amish puppy during a milk raid the videos on youtube :)
And get back to me on the hydroxy cut ban when the federal government can figure out how to keep heroin out of prison until then stop pretending you can ban anything in a free society.
Oh that's right you don't want a free society.
TheTruthBomb 2 weeks ago
@DaystarEld With all the research you are doing, would you really not be able to tell if the bread you wanted to buy was made of 70% sawdust?
Why do you need the gov't to do that for you when you then are required to spend the same amount of time and energy researching what the gov't is doing?
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
@DaystarEld The FDA is responsible for more atrocities than I can even count. They are evil. Sounds like you need to do some research.
projekt84 2 weeks ago
@DaystarEld "because corporation" -Actually I think it's more along the lines of knowing you are not that stupid. You don't need a nanny to point guns at everyone just the make sure they are not putting sawdust in bread. You can simply not buy bread with sawdust in it.
With that comes the lack of gov't protection for private corporations. Remember that corporations are formed with gov't legal protection that allows the owners to make decisions with little consequence personally.
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
@DaystarEld Do you really think people would just trust that a pill contains what a company says it does without verifiable third party research?
Do you really think people would form companies based on selling bad products/using harmful business practices if they were personally liable for damages to others due to their decisions?
Do you think the situation would be better, worse, or the same for the consumers if this were the case?
If worse, how so?
AndreisEntaro 2 weeks ago
He is. Seth Rogen. Just listen.
dlo925 2 weeks ago
not to mention when the government stops meddling we get the 'corn bubble bursting' and chuckleheads bemoaning capitalism's failure even as once again the rubes ignore government intervention that enslaves free market forces.
badasslordIan 2 weeks ago
Surely it depends on the government...
LondonIrishRover 2 weeks ago
@LondonIrishRover lol nope
patton890 2 weeks ago
penn and teller kick some serious ass
MrSleeps 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RonPaulRonPaul___RonPaulRonPaul___RonPaul___RonPaulRonPaul RonPaulRonPaul___RonPaulRonPaul___RonPaul___RonPaulRonPaul _______RonPaul___Ron_______Paul___RonPaul__________RonPaul _______RonPaul___Ron_______Paul___RonPaul__________RonPaul RonPaulRonPaul___Ron_______Paul___RonPaul___RonPaulRonPaul RonPaul__________Ron_______Paul___RonPaul___RonPaul_______ RonPaulRonPaul___RonPaulRonPaul___RonPaul___RonPaulRonPaul RonPaulRonPaul___RonPaulRonPaul___RonPaul___RonPaulRonPaul
MrAgentGreeny 3 weeks ago
I admire your passion for furthering the Libertarian cause.
N330AA 3 weeks ago
libertarians are shitheads
matchbox555 3 weeks ago
@matchbox555 Yeah, man. Personal freedom and a Constitutional government is a real shit-head idea. Obama2012.
adamkajones 3 weeks ago
@adamkajones
personal freedom = freedom for rich people to enslave others with their economic power as they please
constitutional government = no social protection, no environmental protection, no fair distribution of wealth
fuck libertarianism
matchbox555 3 weeks ago
@matchbox555 Fair distribution of wealth? So lets say you worked your ass off today, earned $1. You want the government to take your $1 and fairly distribute to other people? So what do you get? 1 cent? Fuck that. I earned that shit, I'm keeping it. Regardless, the REAL issue is the monetary system we have today. Shit wouldn't cost so damn much if we had a gold based standard but hey, you can spread that hard earned money to people who actually are lazy and don't want to have jobs all you want.
TheRealWoogaz 3 weeks ago
@TheRealWoogaz
There will NEVER be enough jobs for everyone because of creative destruction and automation/robotics/AI which will accelerate
so we NEED the government to redistribute wealth to the unemployed
sorry..
(by the way.. its not your money anyway.. ALL wealth is produced by society as a WHOLE)
matchbox555 3 weeks ago
@matchbox555 Go away you smelly statist.
MrMatrixbadger 3 weeks ago
@MrMatrixbadger
im sorry libertarians.. but we need the state to redistribute wealth
matchbox555 3 weeks ago
@matchbox555 Fuck statism
MrAgentGreeny 3 weeks ago
@MrAgentGreeny
im sorry libertarians.. but we need the state to redistribute wealth
matchbox555 3 weeks ago
@matchbox555 Hahahahahahahahahahahaha
Oh wow.
MrAgentGreeny 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MrAgentGreeny Do you know that Christianity is correct? The world around us reveals that G-d DOES exist, and the historical evidence reveals that Jesus Christ really did come to this earth and there is overwhelming evidence that Jesus Christ really did physically rise from the dead. Jesus is coming again and the signs of the end times that were foretold in the Bible are coming to pass.
marionetemanJ 3 weeks ago
@MrAgentGreeny
X2
LibertyRealm 2 weeks ago
@matchbox555 strong arguments you put forward.
WolterChristian 3 weeks ago
Remember the bumper sticker "If You Want to Live in a Country Ruled by Religion Move to Iran?" Well, here's one for libertarians:
"If You Want to Live in a Country With the Government Completely Out of Your Life Move to Somalia."
danning1 3 weeks ago
@danning1 Maybe you should read the constitution. Government does have a role in our lives. If you want to know the role of the federal government read article 1, section 8. If you want to know the role of state governments read the 10th amendment.
99Steve 3 weeks ago
@99Steve I don't understand, I totally agree with you. Did you mean the response for someone else and clicked mine by mistake? What you say is true, while excessive and/or unchecked government is clearly a bad idea human beings will always need some form of it to preserve our freedom and general welfare and so on. That was my point, I'm against libertarianism and, as a country like Somalia proves, the consequences of a very weak or non-existent government can be disastrous.
danning1 3 weeks ago
@danning1 Not true. Government's primary role is to protect person A from person B, not person A from person A.
adamkajones 3 weeks ago
@danning1 Non-argument, it can be applied to anything.
You don't like wars, prohibition, x, y, z? Then you're free to move to a country that doesn't do the thing that you don't like.
crazypants88 3 weeks ago
goddamn morons arguing for democrats vs republicans AS IF IT MAKES A DIFFERENCE
mothaybabonnam 3 weeks ago
You must understand that the corruption so often blamed on capitalism (the skeleton in the basement) is in fact a product of the mixed economy we have had for the past 100+ years. You hand to bureaucrats the power to choke and regulate business, then you blame the businessmen when they are forced to pay extortions to bureaucrats? Capitalism means separation of economics and state, and it is precisely in a capitalist system that there is ZERO incentive for corruption.
Success0527 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Success0527 "You hand to bureaucrats the power to choke and regulate business, then you blame the businessmen when they are forced to pay extortions to bureaucrats?"
Lol. Gotta love how you just painted the most powerful, influential people in the world as the poor, victimized underdog who has no choice but to "pay extortions" (aka, bribes) to operate day to day.
Corruption isn't a one way street. You pure-capitalism fanatics are almost as bad as the pure-socialism ones.
DaystarEld 3 weeks ago
How is this a stupid scheme? It sucks for those getting duped, sure. But I think it's a pretty awesome racketeering scheme.
It's one of those things that I wish I would've invented and profited off of.
tookedeamon 3 weeks ago
I think it would be ok to say that both parties are stupid and us as the american people are stupid for letting this happen.If you want change go protest and vote Ron paul
infamoushado 3 weeks ago 4
@infamoushado RON PAUL 2012
InfraredCentipede 3 weeks ago
1. Listen to some Milton Friedman, balanced and interesting lecture and debate, pretty chill and cool stuff
2. "oh hey it's that magician guy"
3. I kinda agree with this premise he's putting ou--
4. 0:50
5. whoa that's unnecessary
6. Nothing to do here
MCulpa 3 weeks ago
112 corn farmers and ethanol producers disliked this video.
jjenson2006 3 weeks ago
LOL, this is one of the few times I agree with Penn and find him beyond funny.
Ryukikon 3 weeks ago
Corn subsidies are indeed stupid, and THEY ARE ALL MADE POSSIBLE BY REPUBLICANS. Republicans are stupid. Republican politicians are stupid. Republican voters are stupid. No, come to think of it, Republican politicians are evil. But Republican voters are stupid -- for voting for such evil.
MortimerTheClueless 4 weeks ago
@MortimerTheClueless Corn subsidies are indeed stupid, and THEY ARE ALL MADE POSSIBLE BY DEMOCRATS. Democrats are stupid. Democrat politicians are stupid. Democrat voters are stupid. No, come to think of it, Democrat politicians are evil. But Democrat voters are stupid -- for voting for such evil.
unregisteruser 3 weeks ago
@unregisteruser Lame.
unregisteruser 3 weeks ago
@unregisteruser Yeah, I'm sure it's only the Democrats who subsidize farmers. It's not like the majority of major farmland in the US just happens to be in all the most Republican states or anything.
Go back to Fox News or do some real research and follow the money.
DaystarEld 3 weeks ago 18
@DaystarEld Monsanto, ConAgra and Tyson who all own the farmland are not Republican. Political parties are for know-nothing zombies who watch MSNBC or FOX NEWS, not for people who are awake.
unregisteruser 3 weeks ago
@unregisteruser Whether or not the people who own those companies are Republican, Republicans are the ones who have bent over backward at every turn to help them. It's not really up for debate; you can see it in legislature history. Whether it's for ideological reasons or simply because they get bribed/lobbied to do it doesn't change that.
Democrats have their own issues, but equating them as the same is idiotic. Both can be corrupt in their own ways: this is a Republican one.
DaystarEld 3 weeks ago
@DaystarEld Oops, I'm sorry. I did not know which post you were replying to. I was totally being sarcastic with the democrat thing, if you look. It's word for word from the previous post. Anywho - party really doesn't matter. Neither one gives a f*&^ about people. George Washington warned us if we ever became a two-party political system, it would destroy the nation. He was right.
unregisteruser 3 weeks ago
@DaystarEld I'm a libertarian. I could care less if it's the Democrats or Republicans subsidizing. All I care about is that it stops. Go fuck yourself. Have a nice day.
ph7ryan 3 weeks ago
@DaystarEld if corn is being subsidized you'd do better to look at the purchasers than the corn farmer as at either demand point for corn you'd see a similar break even point / profit potential due to newly emergent entrepreneurs eyeing the illusory demand; let me tell you something you already know...you don't want to be a corn farmer....even for virgins in the afterlife...(who would expect those to be attractive I don't get it...they made it to heaven still a virgin?!).
badasslordIan 2 weeks ago
@DaystarEld Ron Paul wants to cut out all corporate welfare. He is the only one not bought and paid for by the banks. Obama and Romney are the same guy!
fognog3 2 weeks ago 27
@DaystarEld Democrats and Republicans are equally beholden to corporate interests. It's not that Republicans cause farm subsidies it's that in the red states there is more lobbying power from farmers and hence whichever party dominates in that area will tend to favour subsidies to farms. Nothing to do with R or D and just about money and influence. R and D are the same, fundamentally.
davyjames 2 weeks ago 15
@davyjames R and D are fundamentally different in that one believes man is naturally evil and the other believes man is naturally good. It doesn't get much more fundamentally different than that, my friend.
shh4 1 week ago